Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Nielso

The fear of child avatars

Recommended Posts


Madeline Blackbart wrote:

All and all I'm saying that gay hating isn't a view shared by all Christians/conservatives. Rather it's a seemingly vocal minority group of fanatics who decided to interpret things as they wish because they find it "icky". Personally I wish they'd just admit there real issue (that they find it icky) instead of hiding behind the bible with "facts" that are shaky at best.

What scares me are the ones that really and truly follow blindly what they are taught. Do these people never develop any sort of instinctual common sense? It's wrong to preach peace and love for your fellow man and then turn around and tear down a group for one thing or another.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Aislin Ceawlin wrote:

I can thoroughly sympathize. While I didn't seem to develop to ridiculous proportions, I did develop before anyone else. It was, to say the least, humiliating at times.

Thanks.  I can understand that.  The teen years were difficult for many, both male and female.  Glad to be finished with them but I see where some may want to use SL as a chance to experience a different version of them.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Sephina Frostbite wrote:

 

EDIT Wait.. I cant say P*ssy cat? Thats her name??? 

Take the space out. :)

I was wondering what you were 'getting at me about'... then I just assumed it was a language filter.

I wanted a 'cat' name when I made this account to 'go neko' and toss out my original (that had a random name I had never liked, so much so that I left SL a week after making it and didn't return for a number of years - I'd read some FAQ that basically threatened me if I ever attempted to make a second account, and said I was stuck with the name I had FOREVER... and it wasn't until a passing curious glance years later that I realized I couldn't even find that FAQ anywhere official, but instead saw instructions on registering alts...)

So um...

I tried every variation on a cat like name I could, and they all sounded even more... hmmm... than what I've ended up with, or were already taken... :)

At least it IS a properly polite word when you don't put the space before 'cat'... :)  Though its falling out of favor

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I saw the that they made it an explicit and I sort panicked . I didn't want you thinking I was mad at you are calling you a name. Dint even think to take the space out. Its early here.. Ill use that excuse LOL.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Madeline Blackbart wrote:


Griffin Ceawlin wrote:


Pussycat Catnap wrote:


Syo Emerald wrote:

Because Its like a big getting unfair advantage of all those women who cant make a child.

 

Wait....what?

Its unfair
to have a virtual avatar shaped and dressed like a child
because some
female
stranger on the internet MIGTH have
reproduction
problems
?! :smileyfrustrated:

Are you serious on that?

Isn't that basically the ENTIRE rationale behind conservative objections to gays?

I don't think anyone has quite figured out a way to blame issues women might have with their plumbing on teh gays just yet.

More often it's because "Jah" said so.

More or less. Well actually it's not jesus who said that. It's located in the old testament. It's also a interpritation thing. ESPECIALLY the sodom and gomorrah readings. There basically interpritations that don't take into consideration the time and events leading to said rules and stories.

This one says follow them

A lot of this has to do with the fact it's translations of translations of stories people recalled.

All and all I'm saying that gay hating isn't a view shared by all Christians/conservates.
Rather it's a seemingly vocal minority group of fanatics who decided to interperate things as they wish because they find it "icky"
. Personally I wish they'd just admit there real issue (that they find it icky) instead of hiding behind the bible with "facts" that are shaky at best.

Yes, as I understand it, read in the original language the Sodom passage refers to a gang of villagers that wanted to brutalize an Angel visiting in Sodom, as he was a "stranger", and no laws protected strangers. One villager puts the angel up in his house, thus giving him legal protection. In response the villagers demand the daughters of the villager... and the Angel smites the whole city.

How that got linked to gays, I believe comes in with King James, who instructed his bible team to make sure the section read a certain way - something he did often, as his entire Bible was designed to prop up his position and give him credibility to take power from the Papacy and give it to himself in England. As far as I know, even the Church of England has since retranslated his book.

But there are other passages about 'laying with' that I do not know translation history / debates on.

 

One thing you will find in some 'mainstream' Religious groups is they love to have an official leader read out 2 to 3 lines of some story and then discuss what it means. The official leader will then dictate to everyone what it means. But if you read the whole couple chapters before and after - the story there often has a completely different meaning...

The Old Testament book is a book of parables, myths and legends. Read pieces in isolation and you miss everything... Even the New Testament is like this. Yeshua will be giving a speach or doing something, and he will often set up a situation by saying one thing, and then showing a completely opposite lesson in his conclusion. That's a common teaching technique: See, looks like A, but then we do this and that, and what we're really dealing with is B.

- Fools only read the first part, and come away with A. Many of them only read the third sentence of the fourth paragraph of the instructions, and come away with C...

But Yeshua was a street Rabbi (there's even a term for it, but I don't know it: a Rabbi who learned from wandering mendicant scholars of the Torah, rather than in the temple as his brother did - such Rabbis had a sort of poetic style but a greater mastery of the lore behind each part of the Torah). As such, his style was influenced by a method of teaching that involved setting up parables for people, or flipping a situation 'on its ears' to reveal a different truth than the expected.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Pussycat Catnap wrote:

How that got linked to gays, I believe comes in with King James, who instructed his bible team to make sure the section read a certain way - something he did often, as his entire Bible was designed to prop up his position and give him credibility to take power from the Papacy and give it to himself in England. As far as I know, even the Church of England has since retranslated his book.

Errm....  what passages do you say James I & VI instructed the translators of the AV to alter?   Wycliffe's Bible (English translation from the late C14th, so ~230 years earlier than the AV) of Gensis 19;45 is even more explicit (at least in the italicised marginal note, "bring them out hither, (so) that we (may) know them, that is, by lechery against kind.") and the New Jerusalem Bible (that is, the contemporary Catholic translation) says, "Calling out to Lot they said, 'Where are the men who came to you tonight? Send them out to us so that we can have intercourse with them.'"

What do you say the translation should be, and what did the original translators of the AV want to say before James stepped in?   I don't disbelieve you, but it's certainly news to me he tampered with the translation of that particular episode.   I'm a bit surprised, is all, particularly since many historians think James' relationships with his male favourites were probably sexual (thought that's by no means certain).   Presumably there must be some correspondence between him and the translators discussing the passage in question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is all a side topic off of a joke that I had really meant to refer to conservative objections to Gay Marriage, which seem to boil down to "its icky to us when some random stranger we don't know or have anything to do with does it, so we want it banned" - which was itself based on a side joke about the comment over prim babies...

Off-top of an off-topic from a comment about the wrong thing... :)

 

So...

My reference here is actually going to come from an anti-gay website, because they're quoting all the parts, the scholarly work that points out how those have been mistranslated, and then claiming the now corrected translation is what is wrong:

http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles/DobrasOxfordBible.php

The Oxford Bible's annotations are key - they put the context back in for what terms meant in their day. The linked website is claiming the Oxford folks are just 'left wing politically correct' sorts.

I'm not finding the Oxford annotations themselves online, just criticism of them.

I'm not finding the criticism I've heard oft of King James - I may be wrong there. I've heard a number of denouncements against his version. The chief of them being that it emphasis divine rule of Kings in subtle ways.

As for general mistranlations, those have been going on since the Romans took hold in the 300s of all Christians not in Ethiopia (the one place that never came under their sway, though it later conceeded authority to Egyptian Coptics who had foreign influences, it has still maintained books like the Kebra Negast apart from outside influence but written by their own internal scholars - you can see its own tone change the further chronologically you get into it).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks.  The argument on the link you sent me seems utterly bonkers, but I see what you mean.   They seem, though, to be quarreling with the Oxford Bible's commentary on the text rather than the translation itself.    Not that it really matters, I guess.

I only picked up on it because, at least from what I remember of history lessons about the period (which must have a very different emphasis here from that they have in the USA, for obvious reasons), James was primarily concerned about how key NT passages relevant to hot doctrinal disputes within the Church of England like  transubstantiation, and predestination vs free will were translated, so all the churches in his national church were preaching from the same source.   He specifically didn't want unauthorised (usually ultra-Protestant) versions being used, since that was causing too much dissention.   

That's one of the reasons the Pilgrim Fathers wanted to get away from England -- so they weren't forced to use that horrid herectical King James Bible!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Innula Zenovka wrote:

Thanks.  The argument on the link you sent me seems utterly bonkers, but I see what you mean.   They seem, though, to be quarreling with the Oxford Bible's commentary on the text rather than the translation itself.    Not that it really matters, I guess.

Yeah... that's because the NRSV, which the Oxford folks use, I think..., just says "know them".

So when Oxford comes back with "that meant this and that", and their that is not to somebody's liking... angry internet heads talk.

NRSV "claims" to be closer to accurate translation. BUT also claims to have been church vetted and approved - meaning politicians from various sects got their hands on the notes from the translators before we did...

 

I looked up an Orthodox Jewish version, and it too just says "know them" but then has "[carnally]" added after, and the brackets there make me wonder who/why that was added. No annotations. I think one would need to consult the Midrash to find out - it might even have been put there by the website I found it on... Am told by my Orthodox friends that every word in Hebrew has at least 50 meanings, plus 50 more if written down before they had vowels in their alphabet, and that's only because they forgot the last 50 a few thousand years ago. :)

Thus most Torah scholars seem to view the entire book as a bunch of spiritual fables up for debate and never to be read literally, least of all in an isolated 'few passages by themselves' context.

 

Oh and... I'd really appreciate it if you could take some of your pilgrims back. They're really mucking up my Congress right now... :P

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People will continue using selective lines from the Bible to prop up their own small-minded beliefs... this only becomes valid when you give them and their agenda validity.  Otherwise, it's completely meaningless and should remain so.

...Dres

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Dresden Ceriano wrote:

People will continue using selective lines from the Bible to prop up their own small-minded beliefs... this only becomes valid when you give them and their agenda validity.  Otherwise, it's completely meaningless and should remain so.

...Dres

I wish kudos were allowed here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Drake1 Nightfire wrote:


Madeline Blackbart wrote:

All and all I'm saying that gay hating isn't a view shared by all Christians/conservatives. Rather it's a seemingly vocal minority group of fanatics who decided to interpret things as they wish because they find it "icky". Personally I wish they'd just admit there real issue (that they find it icky) instead of hiding behind the bible with "facts" that are shaky at best.

What scares me are the ones that really and truly follow blindly what they are taught. Do these people never develop any sort of instinctual common sense? It's wrong to preach peace and love for your fellow man and then turn around and tear down a group for one thing or another.

Yes I question these people as well. However you do have to account for the fact they come from a family/town/society setup that enables and demands this behavior. It's very hard to go against what your family/church/town wants you to believe. I'mnot saying it's right but I am saying it's hard to be the few to stand up for whats right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have been through years of SL and have listened to many debates over this time on child avatars. There has always been some sort of negativity attached to them in one way or another by somebody. I dont doubt that there are people who use child avs and do things that should never be doing, but there are those other people who have nothing but good intentions and still get all of the negativity anyway. For the most part the child av community is about reliving your childhood in a way you never were able to have and enjoying a fun young carefree experiance without adult dramas.

 

As for child and teen av attire, i hate it when i see in appropriate adult clothing and cosmetics on them. It looks like some horrible mini adult. I appriciate a person who actually takes the time to think about what a normal kid would really wear and dress age appropriate. I hate the baby talk thing. If you are over 2 years old you need to talk normal. Oh and another thing i cant stand is seeing 7 and 8 year old kid avs with pacifiers. Thats just weird.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Child avs with breasts and smoking cigarettes, child avs in bars and clubs.....wrong!  I also hate the baby talking thing, it makes me feel uncomfortable :-/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I never did the child avatar thing, but I wanted too when I first started.... however I didn't quite understand resizing and I'm a furry, I can't have a giant head on a child body.  Doesn't look right.

That being said, I have furry avatars of all heights.  One of them is a Kani (rabbit avatar, which cracks me up because Kani means crab in Japanese...) and I was told before that the default body was 'too childish' and the person gave me a 'mature' body for it... and then the Kani head was too small! IT WAS CREEPY.

And then I met a 'baby fur'... the RL person was an older individual that had to be cared for... and it showed in their avatar.... It was cute for the first... oh.... 10 seconds, then it's diaper scripted a poo action and it made baby noises.  Not cool at a club, just saying.  I'm there to dance and have fun, not care for a baby fur.

At the same time, going back to my Kani avatar and the hybrid I made using the head... Yea, I can look like a teenager or young-young adult, and I haven't really recieved negative feedback, sans for being a fur.  I see 'anime' or 'kawaii' human avatars and think 'huh, you look 16' and move on with my life.  Young avatars don't bother me until they do the iccle speak, or have annoying scripts that make them soil a diaper and then whine about it until someone clicks on the menu to change it.

Now, being 25 irl, there are times I don't want responsibility, I want to be a teenager.  At that point I don't go to adult sims where my RLV can kick in and trap me in something too mature for that age group.  I don't talk like a toodler.  I don't act disrespectful (unless it's a bot or AFK avatar, then let's face it, it's fun).  I also have a GIR avatar I will use to cause random havoc... but once again I stay away from adult sims where role-playing would not appreciate the avatar of my choice.

I think that's the downfall of young (child and teenage) avatars: the lower level of respect.  Often (not always) the RL person doesn't care to respect the whims of the sim they are on, it's all about them, which is a child mentality.  The amount that occurs yields to a general and bias unlike towards the avatars.

If I see a child avatar, I will treat it like any other avatar, and I don't have to stick around to mother it if that is what the RL person wants.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Mandichi Ishmene wrote:

 

Now, being 25 irl, there are times I don't want responsibility, I want to be a teenager.  At that point I don't go to adult sims where my RLV can kick in and trap me in something too mature for that age group.  I don't talk like a toodler.  I don't act disrespectful (unless it's a bot or AFK avatar, then let's face it, it's fun).  I also have a GIR avatar I will use to cause random havoc... but once again I stay away from adult sims where role-playing would not appreciate the avatar of my choice.


Not for nothing, but you should have RLV turned off if you are anything but an adult av.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Drake1 Nightfire wrote:


Mandichi Ishmene wrote:

 

Now, being 25 irl, there are times I don't want responsibility, I want to be a teenager.  At that point I don't go to adult sims where my RLV can kick in and trap me in something too mature for that age group.  I don't talk like a toodler.  I don't act disrespectful (unless it's a bot or AFK avatar, then let's face it, it's fun).  I also have a GIR avatar I will use to cause random havoc... but once again I stay away from adult sims where role-playing would not appreciate the avatar of my choice.


Not for nothing, but you should have RLV turned off if you are anything but an adult av.

As long as you're not wearing a device which interacts with it, it need not really be turned off.  And even if you are, there are ways to disable the features that could compromise yourself in such a situation.

...Dres

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Drake1 Nightfire wrote:

 

Not for nothing, but you should have RLV turned off if you are anything but an adult av.

You're assuming RLV is only and can only be used for one thing. But it isn't and it doesn't have to be.

... like putting badly behaved todder on the naughty step maybe. (I've no idea if that exists - I doubt it does - but just saying..)

When you think about it, using RLV with child avis makes sense in that sort of context. It can potentially give a 'parent' some kind of control over a 'child'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


wesleytron wrote:


Drake1 Nightfire wrote:

 

Not for nothing, but you should have RLV turned off if you are anything but an adult av.

You're assuming RLV is only and can only be used for one thing. But it isn't and it doesn't have to be.

... like putting badly behaved toddler on the naughty step maybe. (I've no idea if that exists - I doubt it does - but just saying..)

When you think about it, using RLV with child avis makes sense in that sort of context. It can potentially give a 'parent' some kind of control over a 'child'.

You do know what RLV stands for, right?

Restrained Love Viewer it was designed for the BD/Sm community. Sorry, any child av that told me they had RLV enabled would be an instant AR and mute. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Drake1 Nightfire wrote:


wesleytron wrote:


Drake1 Nightfire wrote:

 

Not for nothing, but you should have RLV turned off if you are anything but an adult av.

You're assuming RLV is only and can only be used for one thing. But it isn't and it doesn't have to be.

... like putting badly behaved toddler on the naughty step maybe. (I've no idea if that exists - I doubt it does - but just saying..)

When you think about it, using RLV with child avis makes sense in that sort of context. It can potentially give a 'parent' some kind of control over a 'child'.

You do know what RLV stands for, right?

Restrained
Love
Viewer it was designed for the BD/Sm community. Sorry, any child av that told me they had RLV enabled would be an instant AR and mute. 

You do know why it is called "Restrained Love" don't you?

That wasn't its original name.

But besides that, there are a lot of non-sexual functions it provides that people use.

But go ahead and harrass people for no reason.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Perrie Juran wrote:


Drake1 Nightfire wrote:


wesleytron wrote:


Drake1 Nightfire wrote:

 

Not for nothing, but you should have RLV turned off if you are anything but an adult av.

You're assuming RLV is only and can only be used for one thing. But it isn't and it doesn't have to be.

... like putting badly behaved toddler on the naughty step maybe. (I've no idea if that exists - I doubt it does - but just saying..)

When you think about it, using RLV with child avis makes sense in that sort of context. It can potentially give a 'parent' some kind of control over a 'child'.

You do know what RLV stands for, right?

Restrained
Love
Viewer it was designed for the BD/Sm community. Sorry, any child av that told me they had RLV enabled would be an instant AR and mute. 

You do know why it is called "Restrained Love" don't you?

That wasn't its original name.

But besides that, there are a lot of non-sexual functions it provides that people use.

But go ahead and harrass people for no reason.

 

Yep, after learning what RLV could do, my partner used it to work around annoyances in SL, such as putting all the things she routinely wore, such as hair, skin, shape, tattoo, jewelry, etc, in a folder that could be "locked". This was prior to "Outfits" and allowed her to change clothes much more quickly, without worrying about displacing things she didn't wish to change.

We also found the "forced teleport" to be very handy while exploring. While she was generally captivated by the aesthetics of a new sim, I was often as much or more interested in technical details. This often resulted in us wandering apart during our explorations. It was easier for both of us to have me TP her to my location than to issue a TP request which she then had to accept. This was very handy when she went AFK. If I found something interesting elsewhere, or if others arrived in the area (she was not terribly social) I could beam her out.

I wish these facilities were generally available (with appropriate permission control). Most of the times I log in, I have to ask a friend to TP me to the gathering, then accept a dance animation request. I'm lazy and would vastly prefer just being hauled to the party and made to dance while I say hello to everybody in chat.

I can think of many situations in which I'd be happy as a clam to have someone else grab the wheel for a moment so I could concentrate on something else. I can think of other situations in which that's the last thing I'd want, too. ;-)

So, I'd vote for renaming RLV and making it a standard part of the viewer. I'd also vote for allowing one avatar to be attached to another. How many of us would start asking for piggyback rides if that were easy to do?!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Madelaine McMasters wrote:


Perrie Juran wrote:


Drake1 Nightfire wrote:


wesleytron wrote:


Drake1 Nightfire wrote:

 

Not for nothing, but you should have RLV turned off if you are anything but an adult av.

You're assuming RLV is only and can only be used for one thing. But it isn't and it doesn't have to be.

... like putting badly behaved toddler on the naughty step maybe. (I've no idea if that exists - I doubt it does - but just saying..)

When you think about it, using RLV with child avis makes sense in that sort of context. It can potentially give a 'parent' some kind of control over a 'child'.

You do know what RLV stands for, right?

Restrained
Love
Viewer it was designed for the BD/Sm community. Sorry, any child av that told me they had RLV enabled would be an instant AR and mute. 

You do know why it is called "Restrained Love" don't you?

That wasn't its original name.

But besides that, there are a lot of non-sexual functions it provides that people use.

But go ahead and harrass people for no reason.

 

Yep, after learning what RLV could do, my partner used it to work around annoyances in SL, such as putting all the things she routinely wore, such as hair, skin, shape, tattoo, jewelry, etc, in a folder that could be "locked". This was prior to "Outfits" and allowed her to change clothes much more quickly, without worrying about displacing things she didn't wish to change.

We also found the "forced teleport" to be very handy while exploring. While she was generally captivated by the aesthetics of a new sim, I was often as much or more interested in technical details. This often resulted in us wandering apart during our explorations. It was easier for both of us to have me TP her to my location than to issue a TP request which she then had to accept. This was very handy when she went AFK. If I found something interesting elsewhere, or if others arrived in the area (she was not terribly social) I could beam her out.

I wish these facilities were generally available (with appropriate permission control). Most of the times I log in, I have to ask a friend to TP me to the gathering, then accept a dance animation request. I'm lazy and would vastly prefer just being hauled to the party and made to dance while I say hello to everybody in chat.

I can think of many situations in which I'd be happy as a clam to have someone else grab the wheel for a moment so I could concentrate on something else. I can think of other situations in which that's the last thing I'd want, too. ;-)

So, I'd vote for renaming RLV and making it a standard part of the viewer. I'd also vote for allowing one avatar to be attached to another. How many of us would start asking for piggyback rides if that were easy to do?!

Yeah, but by Drake's logic, because the Official Viewer could be used for a child Ava to jump on sex pose balls, any child Ava using the Official Viewer should be reported for violating the TOS.

I'm wondering if Drake would consider a "Parent" using RLV to change their "Child's" dirty diaper sexual activity?

Personally speaking, I don't know any one who gets sexually aroused by dirty diapers.

 

eta:  punctuation

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Perrie Juran wrote:

 

Personally speaking, I don't know any one who gets sexually aroused by dirty diapers.


On the charge of feigning ignorance of Rule 34: GUILTY

The Judge

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


jujmental wrote:


Perrie Juran wrote:

 

Personally speaking, I don't know any one who gets sexually aroused by dirty diapers.


On the charge of feigning ignorance of Rule 34:
GUILTY

The Judge


If the Court please, I did not say that I was not aware people did get aroused by this.  I stated that "I don't know any one." 

However, I would ask permission to amend this statement to read, "I am not aware of any one I know getting aroused by this activity."

It would be obvious that I can't know every time someone I knows gets a hard on or whatever the female equivalent is to this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...